There is no record of Ellen White ever having been ordained by human hands. Yet from 1871 until her death she was granted ministerial credentials by various organizations of the church. The certificate that was used read “Ordained Minister.” Several of her credential certificates from the mid 1880s are still in our possession. On the one from 1885 the word ordained is neatly struck out. On the 1887 certificate, the next one we have, it is not.
Had she been ordained in the interim? Some have argued that she had. But the question is settled definitely by her own hand. In 1909 she filled out a “Biographical Information Blank” for the General Conference records. On the blank for Item 19, which asks, “if ordained, state when, where, and by whom,” she simply inscribed an X. This is the same response she made to item 26, which asked, “If married, give date, and to whom.” In this way she indicated that she had never remarried, nor had she ever been ordained. She was not denying that God had chosen and equipped her, but she indicated that there had never been an ordination ceremony carried out for her.*
Why then do some of her credentials say “ordained minister”? The fact that “ordained” was sometimes crossed out highlights the awkwardness of giving credentials to a prophet. The church has no such special category of credentials. So it utilized what it had, giving its highest credentials without performing an ordination ceremony. In actuality, the prophet needed no human credentials. She functioned for more than 25 years prior to 1871 without any.
Prove All Things, pp. 279
Arthur L. White, “Ellen G. White the Person,” Spectrum 4, No. 2 (Spring 1972): p. 8. The Biographical Information blank is on file at the White Estate office in Washington, D.C. A photocopy is in the Document File 701 at the White Estate Branch Office, Andrews University.
"At the age of 78 I am still toiling. We are all in the hands of the Lord. I trust in Him; for I know that He will never leave nor forsake those who put their trust in Him. I have committed myself to His keeping.{DG 252.3}
“And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry.”–RH, July 26, 1906.{DG 252.4}
“In the city of Portland the Lord ordained me as His messenger, and here my first labors were given to the cause of present truth.”–RH, May 18, 1911.{DG 252.5}
IT WILL BE RECALLED THAT ELLEN WHITE WAS GIVEN HER FIRST VISION IN DECEMBER 1844, IN PORTLAND, MAINE. SHORTLY THEREAFTER SHE WAS PROMPTED BY THE LORD TO TELL OTHERS WHAT SHE HAD SEEN.{DG 252.
WHILE LOOKING FOR THE TEXT THAT SAYS THAT egw WAS “JUST” ORDAINED BY GOD I NOTED THIS SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF ORDINATION. DON’T KNOW WHY IT TOOK US A WHOLE PAGE. DON’T KNOW WHAT PART OF THIS WE FEEL COMPELLED TO DENY WOMEN OR WHY WE WAIT SO LONG TO GIVE IT TO MEN: shining
"Before being sent forth as missionaries to the heathen world, these apostles were solemnly dedicated to God by fasting and prayer and the laying on of hands. Thus they were authorized by the church, not only to teach the truth, but to perform the rite of baptism and to organize churches, being invested with full ecclesiastical authority. {AA 160.2}
…Both Paul and Barnabas had already received their commission from God Himself, and the ceremony of the laying on of hands added no new grace or virtual qualification. It was an acknowledged form of designation to an appointed office and a recognition of one’s authority in that office. By it the seal of the church was set upon the work of God. {AA 161.2}
1 Like
hopeful
(Mercy triumphs over judgment. James 2:13)
186
Your source relies on outdated disproved information. You can go to the White Estate website where they explicitly inform that the “Biographical Information Blank” was filled out by a secretary, not by EGW’s “own hand.” Being a routine administrative form, it’s unlikely EGW was even consulted, & differs from her own statement that I’ve included below.
Only one of the known existing Ordination Credentials has the word ordained lined out. It is unknown whether this was done in her lifetime. There is no proof that it was done before granting it, as if our presses were unable to print a different credential. None of the other credentials have the crossing out, including later ones, which would certainly have been the case had the church needed to adapt the certificate to prevent confusion. In addition to the multiple certificates of ordination, there are the yearly entries for EGW listed w/ the ordained ministers in the Yearbook.
EGW herself stated that she’d been ordained by God, & here’s her description of the very things asked by the Biographical Information Form, Item 19, which asks, “if ordained, state when, where, and by whom”:
“In the city of Portland, the Lord ordained me as His messenger, and here my first labors were given to the cause of present truth” (Letter 138, 1909 in 6Bio 211). Thus her ordination was humanly recognized in all the ways described. Insistence on laying human hands on her would have been presumptuous.
"EGW received ordination credentials from the Michigan Conference beginning in 1871 & they were renewed annually thereafter through 1887 (after this, they were issued by the General Conference). Michigan Conference’s 1886 report was introduced with the words: "Your committee on credentials and licenses would present the following names of ordained ministers for a renewal of their credentials the ensuing year." http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/egw_credentials/egw_credentials.htm (emphasis supplied)
You are just using “Kevin’s Method” which is always an effort to prove that what was said was not actually said, what is written is not actually written, and now what was issued (a certificate of ordination) was not actually issued.
Sure, we can see that some people gladly buy into it. Some.
But Hopeful’s @hopeful comments are very straightforward on this and worth being considered seriously.
I like what is written on the Czech President’s Flag: Pravda Vítězí
(From the Latin expression “Veritas Vincit” - Truth Prevails/Wins)
1 Like
hopeful
(Mercy triumphs over judgment. James 2:13)
188
Some people are so dead set against WO that the truth upsets them. Just before we switched from Disqus I commented to (David_P_R) @truthmaintained that the church credentialed, listed, & paid EGW as an ordained minister (something that is acknowledged by the White Estate). This was his response:
hopeful,
Sorry, but you are obviously (angrily) delusional. Paying her as an ordained minister???
In a letter dated Nov. 17, 1935, Dores E. Robinson replied on behalf of W. C. White (Ellen White’s son and Robinson’s father-in-law) in response to a query concerning Ellen White’s ministerial credentials. He wrote: “[W. C. White] tells me that Sister White was never ordained, that she never baptized, nor did she ever give the ordination charge to others.”
We’re supposed to take W. C. White’s son-in-law’s word for this??? He apparently didn’t have all the facts. We have the evidence from the White Estate that the church considered her an ordained minister and gave her credentials year after year. Man and woman were created in the image of God–without the subordination of one to the other. This was understood in the early years of the church, but we’ve regressed in the decades since. So sad…
well thats left for you to figure it out…as for ordination she never was ordained by men but by God, which is for everyone…but laying of hands its only for men
Cautions have been given me in reference to the work of training nurses and medical missionary evangelists. We are not to centralize this work in any one place. In every sanitarium established, young men and young women should be trained to be medical missionaries. The Lord will open the way before them as they go forth to work for Him. {CH 225.2} The work of the true medical missionary is largely a spiritual work. It includes prayer and the laying on of hands; he therefore should be as sacredly set apart for his work as is the minister of the gospel. Those who are selected to act the part of missionary physicians are to be set apart as such. This will strengthen them against the temptations to withdraw from the sanitarium work to engage in private practice. No selfish motives should be allowed to draw the worker from his post of duty. The medical work done in connection with the giving of the third angel’s message, is to accomplish wonderful results. It is to be a sanctifying, unifying work, corresponding to the work which the great Head of the church sent forth the first disciples to do. {CH 540.4}
Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor. Not a hand should be bound, not a soul discouraged, not a voice should be hushed; let every individual labor, privately or publicly, to help forward this grand work. Place the burdens upon men and women of the church, that they may grow by reason of the exercise, and thus become effective agents in the hand of the Lord for the enlightenment of those who sit in darkness. {RH, July 9, 1895 par. 8}
There is a world to be warned. Let not humanity presume to stand in the way, but rather let every man stand aside, and let God work by his Holy Spirit for the accomplishment of the redemption of his purchased possession. Some of these new workers may make mistakes, but let the older ones counsel with them and instruct them how to correct their methods. They should be encouraged to surrender themselves wholly to the Lord, and go to work in a humble way. Such service is acceptable to the Master, and he will supplement their efforts by the power of his Holy Spirit, and many souls will be converted. {RH, July 9, 1895 par. 9}
You are mistaken that laying on of hands has only been for men.
A NUMBER OF WOMEN WERE ORDAINED AS DEACONESSES DURING ELLEN WHITE'S AUSTRALIAN MINISTRY. ON AUGUST 10, 1895, THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE AT THE ASHFIELD CHURCH IN SYDNEY RENDERED ITS REPORT, WHICH WAS APPROVED. THE CLERK'S MINUTES FOR THAT DATE STATE: "IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE ELECTION, THE OFFICERS WERE CALLED TO THE FRONT WHERE PASTORS CORLISS AND MCCULLAGH SET APART THE ELDER, DEACONS, [AND] DEACONESSES BY PRAYER AND THE LAYING ON OF HANDS."{DG 249.3}
SEVERAL YEARS LATER, IN THE SAME CHURCH, W. C. WHITE OFFICIATED AT THE ORDINATION OF THE CHURCH OFFICERS. THE MINUTES OF THE ASHFIELD CHURCH FOR JANUARY 7, 1900, STATE: "THE PREVIOUS SABBATH OFFICERS HAD BEEN NOMINATED AND ACCEPTED FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, AND TODAY ELDER WHITE ORDAINED AND LAID HANDS ON THE ELDERS, DEACON, AND DEACONESSES.--AR, JAN. 16, 1986.{DG 249.4}
Creating false barriers for women has served us wrongly. Women can be just as gifted as men, in leadership as well as pastoring. We have used this false notion that men have something given to them of God that women can’t possess, yet God is no respecter of persons when it comes to distributing His gifts. No gift is gender exclusive. This false thinking has carried over to the rite of ordination. Though we say that ordination only recognizes God’s call we won’t give it to women because, well, women do not have something that only men have: God’s blessings of spiritual leadership and authority.
This embrace of false notions about men having spiritual capacities for leadership that women don’t and can’t possess has ultimately made ordination a barrier to women regardless of the fact that God obviously calls women to not only preach, but lead.
Thank you my friend, for standing up and being counted. I appreciate you guys who can on the surface get nothing out of this but hassle for supporting full inclusion but do it anyway.
I think you got my e-mail abt the turn-around on the Review article. So many times we think think there is nothing we can do, that no one will listen to us. Much joy this pm in Mudville.
As a woman I find this insulting! Supporting WO is not the ‘cool side’. It is the side that recognises discrimination and misogyny when they see it, and has the courage to defend the dignity of women and their valuable contribution to the Lord’s work. Have the courage to look beyond the cultural norms of ancient societies and look for the principles that Jesus demonstrated in His treatment of women!
Maybe I should have worded that better. And said, those who are for WO are seen as open minded who want to help women, while those who are not are seen as close minded, wanting to hold women back. I dont see it that way. I believe that there are genuine people on the no WO side who believe what they do because of scripture. You or I may disagree with their interpretation, but thats all we can do.
You can find people on both sides who believe what they do, not because of scripture, but because its what they want, regardless what the bible says.